YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN Reviews- Page 2

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:27pm

"No one is more at sea than Bart, whose entire characterization seems based on Elaine Stritch having a bad hair day."

Thats cruel!

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:28pm

"It does this in spite of Stroman, who either needs to buy a bigger bag of tricks or stop pulling from the one that's propelled her career for almost two decades. Her hard-sell staging and reliance on dances in lines, dances with props, and dances full of stomp and fury yet signifying nothing display their age and inappropriateness when not servicing the show-biz glitz that's her preferred territory."-from Talkin' Broadway

OWWWW.

[pab]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:29pm

"How long before the premium seating price is reduced along with the number offered?"

I expect to see those prices drop very soon. As I mentioned today in another thread on this show:
It's just not worth the price.

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:30pm

I can't freakin' wait for BroadwayAbridged's version of this:

YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN:
The musical that wants to assure you that it is definately the next 'Spamalot'

Updated On: 11/8/07 at 08:30 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:32pm

Yet another review from a source we never see on opening night -- The Chicago Tribune is Mixed-to-Negative:

"The central problem, which should have been fixed out of town, is perfectly simple. The passive central character doesn’t seem to want anything in particular. And thus nothing drives the show. Nobody was expecting Brooks to recast his famed homage to James Whale's 1931 "Frankenstein" movie as "War and Peace." But even satiric musicals need something energetic to propel the show along. It can be a quest to produce the worst Broadway show on Earth. A desperate need to find the Holy Grail. Whatever. It doesn’t even have to make sense. But it has to be there. It ain’t here.

The storytelling mostly is flat and anemic. And Roger Bart’s Dr. Frederick Frankenstein is a pleasingly quirky but curiously passive and retreating presence. This long and inorganic show just seems to happen around him (rather as if he were in a movie) without his driving even so much as a hay wagon. Whereas “The Producers” felt naturally reborn as a Broadway musical, “Young Frankenstein” is more of a very expensive and expansive live re-creation of the movie’s most beloved moments, replete with a musical score that packs some orchestral excitement but not as much legitimacy.

There are some laughs, several inventive lyrics and a few moments of inspired theatrical shtick (much of it involving Fred Applegate’s hermit). But at these prices, that’s really not delivering the goods......

...... And there are some sequences that work; the “Young Frankenstein” train isn’t so much in a wreck as firmly off its rails. In a cast that includes the pleasant Sutton Foster (as Inga), the daffy but ill-moored Megan Mullally (as Elizabeth) and the droll Andrea Martin (as Frau Blucher), the creature who comes off best is Shuler Hensley’s The Monster, a pleasingly human and humane creation, despite his bulk. As one surely hoped, the legendary “Puttin’ on the Ritz” sequence is once again hilarious.

Or, at least, it’s hilarious for the first five minutes, before the whole number gets expanded, amplified and blown up in one of those can’t-stop, slightly panicked, overproduced signals that a highly skilled creative team has been torn from its roots."



http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/the_theater_loop/2007/11/with-young-fran.html

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:32pm

Had it been another producers, it never would have been worth the price. No show is.

[pab]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:32pm

Chicago Tribune - Mostly Negative

"NEW YORK — "Young Frankenstein" has a roughly $20 million budget, some $450 orchestra seats, an iconic 1974 source movie, performers with better pedigrees than the Queen of England's corgis and heaps of goodwill flowing from the way its eminently lovable creator, the 81-year-old Mel Brooks, made the Rialto roar in 2001 with "The Producers."

And yet it's a colossal — and, boy, is this show a monster — disappointment."

With 'Young Frankenstein,' they've created a ... dud

Updated On: 11/8/07 at 08:32 PM

[pab]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:35pm

AM New York - Negative

"1.5 Stars We won't even bother addressing whether "Young Frankenstein" is worth $450. This is a theatre review, not a financial report. But any way you look at it, "Young Frankenstein," Mel Brooks' highly anticipated Broadway musical sequel to "The Producers," is a grossly disappointing disaster."

'Young Frankenstein' is a monster disaster

Updated On: 11/8/07 at 08:35 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:37pm

AMNY gives it 1.5 Stars:

" We won't even bother addressing whether "Young Frankenstein" is worth $450. This is a theatre review, not a financial report. But any way you look at it, "Young Frankenstein," Mel Brooks' highly anticipated Broadway musical sequel to "The Producers," is a grossly disappointing disaster......

So, what went wrong in "Young Frankenstein"?

1. Terrible theater: While "The Producers" was housed at the St. James, one of Broadway's best theaters, "Young Frankenstein" is at the Hilton, an awkward, oversized barn of a space.

2. Miscasting. Roger Bart is a funny guy, but he lacks the star power to carry the show as Frankenstein. The talents of Sutton Foster, as sexpot lab assistant Inga, and Megan Mullally, as fiancé Elizabeth, are totally wasted in supporting roles. But Shuler Hensley (the Monster), Andrea Martin (Frau Blucher) and Christopher Fitzgerald (Igor) are wonderful, providing unadulterated slapstick entertainment.

3. Bad songs. Nothing in the entire "Young Frankenstein" score compares with gems from "The Producers" like "The King of Old Broadway," "Springtime for Hitler," "I Want to Be a Producer" or "Keep It Gay."

4. Uninspired choreography. Nothing in "Young Frankenstein" demands dancing. Nevertheless, Susan Stroman has awkwardly inserted dance sequences like "Transylvania Mania" and an extended version of "Puttin' on the Ritz."

5. Flat jokes. For the most part, Brooks merely copies the film's dialogue. All his new stuff, unfortunately, is plain boring.

Of course, there are lush sets, costumes and orchestrations. And this is definitely better than the pale Off-Broadway musical "Frankenstein." Well, maybe the Broadway musical of "Blazing Saddles" will be better."


http://www.amny.com/entertainment/am-frank1108,0,7558516.story

[uncageg]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:41pm

Here is the Mel Brooks interview with Brian Williams. it is about 20 minutes long.

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619&fg=&from=00&vid=9a31992b-48e9-42f6-86fa-3585afdfac5c&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:News_Editors%20Picks:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:43pm

Mel cannot be a happy camper about now & may really be P.O.'D after all the reviews are in.

[tomemiller]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:45pm

He's scheduled for the Today Show tomorrow and MSNBC for the weekend. I guess you can call it damage control.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:45pm

i agree

the chicago tribune is pretty much a pan

[iluvcioffiiluvtea]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:50pm

Did Sutton get any raves?

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:53pm

Mel Brooks is a very angry man, judging from that MSNBC video.

But I do agree about the $450 controversy - it has been blown out of proportion.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:55pm

"Did Sutton get any raves?"


NO!

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 8:58pm

With these reviews, how long before the advance dries up & discounts start?

I say 6 to 9 months.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 9:01pm

Theatremania is Mixed-to-Positive:

"An extravagantly silly number called "Roll in the Hay" spills sexual innuendo all over the Hilton Theatre stage just about 20 minutes into Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, the musical adaptation of the 1974 laff-riot flick he co-wrote with Gene Wilder. The sequence -- dumb in the dumb-like-a-fox manner typical of Brooks' best work -- is one of a series of entertaining sequences that make the follow-up to The Producers a Transylvanian barrel of fun, even if it falls short of the vaunted level reached by its uproarious predecessor......

.... A good deal of the credit also goes to director-choreographer Susan Stroman, who works her magic just as she did with The Producers. Not the least of her many bright inventions is an 11 o'clock number she joyfully builds around Irving Berlin's interpolated standard, "Putting on the Ritz," where she shows off the tamed monster (a comically braying Shuler Hensley) and an accompanying chorus in top hat, tails, and platform boots. Although that extended turn is the tuner's pinnacle -- and puts the amusing but slighter Brooks score in the shade -- cute-enough numbers are handed around to the troupe of scene-stealers sharing the stage and immensely enjoying themselves. ....

...The Brooks-Meehan combo has some dialogue lapses as well. Whereas every joke in The Producers lands squarely, too many of the gags and situations here misfire or flare so dimly as to be undetectable. The pace is noticeably slow at the top of the show, despite a clever tongue-tying number about the brain that Bart delivers with crisp expertise."


http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/12023

[uncageg]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 9:03pm

That video must not be the entire interview. I saw the actual broadcast and they were on the stage when he was pointing to the expensive seats. I am almost positive they were.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 9:06pm

SOMEBODY up there likes them. It's David Finkle.

I still don't think these reviews matter in the long run (pardon the pun).

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 9:09pm

I dont know why but i think the bad reviews will have an impact on its run

More eyes are on this show than most and with high Premium seat prices etc and bad publicity i can see people avoiding it

[DARTH]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 9:17pm

When one has a $30 million pre-opening box office, a show can withstand a lot of bad press and negative reviews.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 9:19pm

Songanddance,

Perhaps you're right about the long-term effect, but I just think people are going to want to see it regardless of the reviews. They'll think, "Oh! They've made a musical of Young Frankenstein! Let's go see that!" Plus the production stills are going to scream "Big flashy production!" And a lot of people think their $120 should buy "big" and "flashy."

I don't know. I'm no expert. I guess what I'm saying is that there are many better shows that deserve longer runs than they get and this one will get a longer one than it deserves. Does that make any sense?

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 9:22pm

Oh yeah i totally agree

I dont think its gonna close in like 6 months or anything (its advance has taken care of that) i just think this could harm its long term plans.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/8/07 at 9:25pm

Bottom line is that there are millions of tourists out there who will be visiting New York and seeing some shows sometime in the next couple of years and probably less than 5% of them will ever read any of the reviews in this thread (honestly, what percentage of the public ever reads theatre reviews? 1%? 5%? 10%?????). They'll just find out through the grapevine that there's a new musical based on the very funny movie they love "Young Frankenstein" and based on that alone will want to see it and buy tickets.

It won't top THE PRODUCERS in terms of awards or box office success, but this show ain't going anywhere for a long time and Mel Brooks will once again laugh all the way to the bank.

Updated On: 11/8/07 at 09:25 PM